As readers may recall, CCNC has been credited by physicians with using the Medical Home Model to save the State hundreds of millions of dollars in claims expense while simultaneously paying primary care physicians additional PMPM fees. Even though this was all Medicaid all the time, advocates of the patient centered medical home (PCMH) point to apparent success of CCNC as evidence that this care approach should be implemented by all insurers all the time and the sooner the better. In contrast, commercial insurers have taken a more cautious approach, opting instead to test the medical home with 'pilot' programs. No doubt PCMH devotees are also disappointed by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Tri-Committee proposal to also limit the funding of the PCMH to a pilot.

Which is why the DMCB recommends an insightful article appearing in this month’s Medical Home News (subscription required & a disclosure: the DMCB is a non-compensated member of the Editorial Advisory Board). While a blog summary here won’t do it justice, the very experienced Michael Cousins, PhD walks the no-man’s land between insurers and providers to distill the opposing points of view.

Dr. Cousins points out that the actuaries who authored the CCNC reports used a classic insurance-based paradigm. These were ‘observational’ descriptions of what happened, not explanations about the underlying causes. Actuarial reports can get closer an understanding of the causes if the analysis mathematically neutralizes or adjusts for variables such as patient/physician self selection, cost/service inflation, reimbursement changes or other flaws in the study design. Dr. Cousins read the CCNC reports closely and found they didn't do that and, what's more, that they steered clear of addressing the issue of causality by carefully relying on words such as ‘associated’ and ‘correlated.’ The reports never used the 'C' word and without it, the utility of the CNCC reports, according to Dr. Cousins, is ‘limited.’

The DMCB thinks this is emblematic of one gulf between insurers and docs. The latter think association, while the latter worry about cause. It's 'what' vs. 'why' and 'how.'

‘’What happened?’’ Insurers are in the business of risk transfer. The DMCB wonders if trading risk for money doesn’t necessary require a deep understanding of causality: the observation that characteristic “A” (drivers less than age 18) is associated with “B” (more car accidents) is what is important. The State of North Carolina got an actuarial report that said “A” (paying providers a PMPM fee and pairing it with nurse care management) was associated with “B” (a drop in claims expense). The actuarial 'what' for this version of the Medical Home was amply demonstrated for the State, which continued the CCNC program. Case closed. (There are other equally simple answers when it comes to risk transfer that are more painful, but the DMCB digresses.)

‘’And did it cause savings?’’ In contrast, in order to provide care, physicians need to know the underlying reasons on why and how good and bad things happen to their patients. For example, they’ll ask why adolescent drivers are so vulnerable to risk-taking? The utility of knowing this is what leads providers to constantly search for cures. That is the business of moving from association to causality. And if there is a direct causal link, all stakeholders - insurers, physicians and patients - can be more confident that it will work outside of North Carolina Medicaid.

Unfortunately, understanding causality is a far more difficult exercise and the process is more prone, as has been demonstrated plenty of times, to mistaken assumptions. When circumstances warrant, the best way to address causality is with clinical trials involving a good comparator. Dr. Cousins agrees and points out that concluding there is a causal link between the medical home and lower costs could be a mistake.

The DMCB goes one step further. Since insurers only need ‘what’ in their business decisions, observing a decline in claims expense in their local pilots will be good enough for them. That’s also why private insurers continue to support their local disease management programs: they are also associated with savings. It's an endorsement, but a very shallow one obtained one network at a time.

Doctors, however, continue to look for answers to the questions how and why. They think they’ve found the answers for the Patient Centered Medical Home that will work in all settings.

No wonder the insurers and docs are talking past each other on the topic.

Here's the User Interface

The PHB & Twitter

LinkedIn

Some more....

Proud to be....

PHB Peer Reviewed Publications:

PHB on Twitter!

Why Should I Read the PHB?

Here's what one reader had to say about the Population Health Blog's ability to to go beyond simple headlines and mainstream newsfeeds:

"This past week, I was surprised to read some of the generic headlines summarizing the VA readmission study. You know, through medical newsfeeds, they almost implied that length of stay didn't have anything to do w/readmissions. When I read the Annals article today, there was certainly a lot more to the study than that. Was happy to see your nice summary, which I agree w/100%. Just wanted to drop you a line to say that Ilooked at your blog w/hopes of finding some commentary on the study---and there it was!"

Not Exactly A Waste Of Time.....

Subscribe To The PHB

This is still true, by the way.....

“Moving into the next century, the most important breakthroughs will be in the from of clinical process innovation rather than clinical product improvement…the next big advances in health care will be the development of protocols for delivering patient care across health care settings over time.”

JD Kleinke, Bleeding Edge

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Vox audita perit, litteras scripta manet

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do Aetna, Humana or UnitedHealth Insurance Cover It? Find Out Here

About Jaan Sidorov MD, MHSA, FACP

While his web persona has been described as a "blogvocateur," Dr. Sidorov has wide range of knowledge about the medical home, condition management, population-based health care and managed care that is only exceeded by his modesty. He has been quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Consumer Reports and NPR’s All Things Considered.
He has over 20 years experience in primary care, disease management and population based care coordination. He is a primary care general internist and former Medical Director at Geisinger Health Plan.
He is primary care by training, managed care by experience and population-based care strategies by disposition.
The contents of this blog reflect only the opinions of Sidorov and should not be interpreted to have anything to do with any current or past employers, clients, customers, friends, acquaintances or enemies, personal, professional, foreign or domestic. This is also not intended to function as medical advice. If you really need that, work with a personal physician or call 911 for crying out loud.
Jaan can be reached at jaansATaolDOTcom.